Neeley: EPA war on coal hurts poor, minorities the most

An old joke about liberal media bias goes if the world were to end, the front page of the next day’s New York Times would read: “World ends: Poor, minorities hardest hit.”

But in the case of the Obama administration’s war on coal, most media seem unconcerned about the disproportionately negative consequences this will have on low-income Americans.

In March, the EPA announced new standards for greenhouse gas emissions for new or modified power plants.

The new rules prevent construction of any new power plant generating more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced.

While natural gas and nuclear plants will be able to meet these new standards — although the former just barely — coal-fired power plants will not.

As Slate’s Matt Yglesias noted, these new rules “will de facto make it impossible for conventional coal-fired facilities to get off the ground.”

The administration’s antipathy to coal is nothing new.

Four years ago, then-candidate Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle under his cap-and-trade proposal, “if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

Once it became clear cap-and-trade could not pass Congress, Obama shifted ground, telling reporters after the November 2010 elections “cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way.”

EPA’s proposed rules also apply to existing plants that need to modify or expand their operations.

That’s significant because several other EPA regulations in the pipeline aim directly at coal and could require modifications of existing plants.

By themselves, this unprecedented slew of regulations is expected to take a severe toll on coal-power.

Add in the greenhouse gas regulations and the effect on coal-power generation could be devastating. Industry sources estimate the greenhouse gas rules could threaten 25 percent of the existing coal-fired fleet.

Coal has been a useful villain for the Obama administration and EPA, but the true victims of these regulations will be American consumers, particularly the poor.

Coal provides half of the base-load electrical generation in the United States. In some areas, as much as 90 percent of base-load electricity comes from coal.

Abrupt removal of so much generation would mean big increases in the price of electricity.

The market-clearing price for new 2015 capacity was eight times higher than the 2012 price, reflecting the impact of EPA’s new regulations.

That will hit our still fragile economy hard. And since the poor pay a disproportionate percentage of their income for energy, they will get hit the hardest.

Roger Bezdek of the Management Information Services has estimated households earning less than $30,000 a year spent more than 20 percent of their after-tax income on energy in 2010, up from 14 percent in 2001.

Households making more than $50,000 a year, by contrast, spend approximately 9 percent of their after-tax income on energy.

Energy takes up more of low-income Americans’ budget than any other item except housing.

EPA’s regulations also threaten many working class Americans’ livelihoods.

In West Virginia and Kentucky, more than 40 percent of Democratic presidential primary voters chose a prison inmate and “uncommitted,” respectively, over Obama.

West Virginia’s Democratic governor and Democratic junior senator declined to say whether they would support Obama in November.

But given that coal is the backbone of these states’ economies, is it really surprising they aren’t fans of the administration’s anti-coal agenda?

The Obama administration claims to be particularly concerned about helping the least among us.

It’s a pity their favored environmental policies end up doing precisely the opposite.

JOSIAH NEELEYis a policy analyst for the Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

What a shame that it seems to draw so little attention. I suppose the lack of attention means that paying $1,600 a month in electricity bills in only two and a half years is no big deal to those who read the AJ.

If true, farmers will be put out of the irrigated farming business and will farm only dryland. Such will reduce America's heavy manufacturing capacity and corresponding status as a world power, which, IMHO, is the intent of the environmental movement.